Resources for the Check Point Community, by the Check Point Community.

Tim Hall has done it again! He has just released the 2nd edition of "Max Power".Rather than get into details here, I urge you to check out this announcement post. It's a massive upgrade, and well worth checking out. -E

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

My Foundation Principles as Discussion Board Administrator

Hello All,

It seems we could benefit from some disclosure and clarity. I consider these to be my Foundation Principles for CPUG:

1. I'm Barry J. Stiefel ("Stee-ful"). I'm based in San Francisco. Through my company, Information Engine, Inc., I provide and maintain the hardware, software and connectivity for all of CPUG's websites and I maintain the Internet domain names and the CPUG® trademark. My company's attorneys handle the legal issues. I'm not a Check Point employee. I don't work for a Check Point partner.

2. The subtitle, or motto, I've chosen for CPUG is "Resources for the Check Point Community. Fast. Useful. Independent". I try to run CPUG according to that motto.

3. I want CPUG to be a place where Check Point firewall administrators can tell the truth and help each other out.

4. CPUG and the discussion board are open to everyone, including Check Point employees and partners. I want CPUG to be the hub for the entire Check Point community.

5. I have not been elected to any position by the users here. I'm the Administrator by default because I created CPUG and maintain its resources. I don't speak for anyone but myself, although I'm willing to summarize the opinions I've heard from other users.

6. Everyone here is responsible for their own words and not responsible for anyone else's words.

7. The site has been designed to give maximum freedom to every user. Every user has the freedom to visit or not visit, the freedom to browse or not browse any forum, the freedom to view or not view any thread, and the freedom to read or not read anything on the site. Every user also has the option to prevent (on their own web browser only) the display of posts by any other user by following these steps: User CP | Settings & Options | Edit Ignore List and adding someone's username.

8. Another freedom every user has is the freedom to express their opinions without another member being able to censor them by making appeals to the Administrator. If you don't like what someone has posted, the appropriate response is to post a reply and explain why you disagree and give supporting evidence. This is how science works. If you think they're being rude, unproductive, not helping CPUG, too negative, or have an opinion that differs from yours, the appropriate response is another post.

9. Appeals to me to suppress another user's speech on the board are almost always a waste of time.

10. CPUG and its resources are funded by Information Engine, Inc., primarily through tuition from CPUG University and revenue generated at CPUG CON. We receive no funding from Check Point.

11. I regularly enjoy the pleasure of destroying spammers by deleting all their posts, deleting every thread they've created, and permanently banning their accounts. I also delete content and ban users for behavior that looks like a deliberate attempt to sabotage the smooth running of the discussion board. Lastly, because our members so hate seeing racist comments, I sometimes delete posts or parts of posts and ban users who post these comments.

12. As Administrator, I have the right, but not the obligation, to view everything on the discussion board, and to delete content or ban users at my sole discretion. I also hope to never use this right.

13. I hope that CPUG can have a mutually-beneficial relationship with Check Point. Our users are their customers.

14. The best predictor of website usability is fast pageloads. Through continuing hardware and software optimization, CPUG pages load very quickly. CPUG sites are fast.

15. The second biggest predictor of website usability is finding a clear path to accomplish what you came here for. I also continuously optimize the site to meet this goal. CPUG sites are easy to navigate.

16. In creating and maintaining CPUG, I take inspiration from Craig's List, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Penn Jillette, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, some Libertarian philosophy, and PhoneBoy.

17. CPUG and its resources are not for everyone. If you are unhappy in any way with anything on our sites and you can't get satisfaction by communicating your wishes to other members or the Administrator, your only recourse is to stop using CPUG and its resources.

18. I reserve the right to update these Foundation Principles at any time.

Re: My Foundation Principles as Discussion Board Administrator

Will these principles be updated to reflect more recent events on this forum? I would suggest that principles 6,7,8,9,12,16 and 17 have had numerous issues of late, and it would be good if the forum reflected the values that have been expressed.

Re: My Foundation Principles as Discussion Board Administrator

Originally Posted by Thorpuse

<Negative post by Thorpuse>

It's pretty clear to me that every post you've made lately can be categorized as SPAM. It is my position that you're putting a specific effort to promote you're product/site while similtaneously attempting to discredit this forum.

It's is further my position, because of your apparent negative intentions, that you should be banned from further posting.

Re: My Foundation Principles as Discussion Board Administrator

Based on the differences I have observed between the stated principles and administrative actions, I conclude that these principles above do not accurately reflect the actual administrative policy of CPUG. I would ask that these principles be updated to be a correct and true representation of the actual administrative policies so that (potential) members can make an informed choice about their level of participation here.

Re: My Foundation Principles as Discussion Board Administrator

Originally Posted by PhoneBoy

Based on the differences I have observed between the stated principles and administrative actions, I conclude that these principles above do not accurately reflect the actual administrative policy of CPUG. I would ask that these principles be updated to be a correct and true representation of the actual administrative policies so that (potential) members can make an informed choice about their level of participation here.

I find it most telling that no one countered my points, just the suggested action.
Am I to take it that you agree with my points and prefer to deflect?

Re: My Foundation Principles as Discussion Board Administrator

I find it most telling that no one countered my points, just the suggested action.
Am I to take it that you agree with my points and prefer to deflect?

Actions are taken without an explanation and people come to conclusions that may or may not be correct. Funny how that works.

I have chosen not to comment on Thorpuse's actions for a very specific reason: it is a matter of CPUG administration. Based on a number of administrative actions taken by Barry and a lack of clear communication to the contrary (publicly or otherwise), I have concluded that my opinions on matters of CPUG administration are no longer welcome here.

Despite our rather public disagreement over these issues, I still consider Barry a friend. Out of respect for that friendship, and in the interest of maintaining a friendly atmosphere, I will refrain from posting to CPUG any further commentary on CPUG administrative matters. That includes, but is not limited to, actions that may have caused one member or another to be banned.

I reserve the right to reconsider this position if new facts are brought to my attention that would lead me to believe this sort of commentary is welcome.

Re: My Foundation Principles as Discussion Board Administrator

Originally Posted by alienbaby

I find it most telling that no one countered my points, just the suggested action.
Am I to take it that you agree with my points and prefer to deflect?

This community was made great by it's contributors. Without these contributions, this site never would have been successful. Barry himself has contributed very little to the posted content on this site that answers the questions or addresses the issues for those needing assistance. He pays for it and advertises his school here, good for him, I honestly hope he gets more enrollments because of it.

Ignoring the pleas of the sites top contributors should have never happened. Barry owns the site, pays for the site and decided that he and he alone should be judge, jury and executioner. We spoke and our voices were only heard when we became angry and insistent that the content be removed, even then, it appeared to be removed very grudgingly.

When is is obvious by action that the stated principals do not match reality, it makes me uncomfortable as well. So I guess that my only option is to also leave.

Goodbye CPUG community, I'm glad to have served you as you have served me.

Re: My Foundation Principles as Discussion Board Administrator

Originally Posted by alienbaby

I find it most telling that no one countered my points, just the suggested action.
Am I to take it that you agree with my points and prefer to deflect?

As I was banned, I was given no right of reply. Which is probably fair enough, because any chance I would have had to comment would probably have been deleted anyway. Seeing as the last deleted post was a genuine inquiry to CPUG members to deal with the issue you raised, and it was deleted, I think it's clear that an open debate on what you would like to discuss is not an option here.

My deleted post on this is documented elsewhere. I won't say where because that will be "link spam" and cause this to be deleted. I know for a fact that a lot of other people are uncomfortable about what's going on here. Alienbaby, I'm a big fan of your work at MWAG Project and value the contributions you make, but I'm saddened that you choose to only represent half the story here.

Re: My Foundation Principles as Discussion Board Administrator

I really don't understand this beef many of you have with Barry. From what I've gleen'd many of you are uncomfortable with the expression of negative thoughts about checkpoint products.

From where I sit, i believe the result of your actions will be the destruction of this resource. It is a shame the so called community has chosen to so over correct, that a great resource within our field is now in danger.

Re: My Foundation Principles as Discussion Board Administrator

I really don't understand this beef many of you have with Barry. From what I've gleen'd many of you are uncomfortable with the expression of negative thoughts about checkpoint products.

From where I sit, i believe the result of your actions will be the destruction of this resource. It is a shame the so called community has chosen to so over correct, that a great resource within our field is now in danger.

I council all of you to reconsider your choice.

Actually the issue many people had has ultimately come down to fundamental issues of governance, moderation and the arbitrary execution of control on this forum. Sadly, this thread is about all that is left on here of that story. The original objection was related to completely offensive and racist content placed by an individual. A significant portion of the Senior Membership here called for this to be removed, however Barry refused until pressured, and even then the moderation job was something I would call sub-optimal. Due to the wonders of Google's cache, some of the story around this can still be found here.

This led to a thread to attempt to discuss a more comprehensive and collaborative governance and moderation model. Sadly, that thread is also gone, but meaningful parts of it can be found here and here. It was clear after these discussions that many people were feeling uncomfortable with the direction and governance of CPUG, and people were actively removing their support and leaving the community entirely. Barry is not blameless in this - he has made decisions and statements that have alienated people. As lammbo has also posted, Barry has set himself up as judge, jury and executioner here, and while he's been open in the fact that this is the case, his moderation decisions of late have gone to the opposite extreme. Thus my call in this forum for the principles to be updated.

Frankly, I find it amazing the level of overreaction that setting up CPShared has caused around here. More resources for the Check Point community is fundamentally a good thing - there is no "divine right" for CPUG to be the sole community-driven Check Point resource, and many of the major contributors to the CP community have become active in both places. A quick visit to CPShared will show that the size, goals, tone, content and flavour of discussion is quite different to here, and people will naturally gravitate to where they feel most comfortable. The point here is that being active in one place does not exclude the other - I know there are several people who find the CPShared model of governance is not what they'd like and prefer it here. That's fine. However having an alternative means that these people can still participate somewhere as opposed to leaving the community altogether. Rather than destroying the community, it is enhancing it by providing choice and keeping people active who would otherwise withdraw their support completely.

My last deleted post was because I wanted to clarify the alleged "SPAM" issue with the CPUG community. I figured that if people objected, they could say so and their wishes could be respected. Sadly, that didn't happen, again because of the moderation taken here. My policy with all of this is "Let the People Decide". Principles 7-9 capture that here. The use of principle 12 is what I find difficult at this point.

I hope that Barry does not choose to delete this and sends a meaningful and thoughtful response.